15 7. Prolonged detention and a conviction for unlawful entry and stay in a State where the convictee proved that he was a national of that State is a violation of various rights including the right to nationality. Robert John Penessis v United Republic of Tanzania Application 013/2015 African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights S Ore, P, B Kioko, VP, G Niyungeko, EH Guisse, RB Achour, ÂV Matusse, TR Chizumila, C Bensaoula, JJ November 28, 2019 The burden of proving a claim that one is not a citizen lies on the State and only applies where the claimant has registration documents. Summary of facts The applicant’s submissions The applicant, Robert John Penessis was convicted of illegal entry and presence in Tanzania and sentenced to two years imprisonment. The applicant claimed to be a citizen of Tanzania and he stated that the respondent had violated his rights to nationality, liberty and freedom of movement. The respondent State was a signatory to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter) and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Protocol.) While the applicant stated that he had Tanzanian parents and that he had lived in Tanzania since his birth, the respondent claimed that it had evidence that the applicant was not a Tanzanian national and he had citizenship in South Africa and The court held that the applicant’s arrest and continued detention were a violation of article the United Kingdom. 12 of the African Charter on Human and The respondent’s submissions Peoples’ Rights. The respondent raised an objection to the court’s jurisdiction on two grounds. One was that the form and content of the application was not in conformity with what was legally prescribed under the Protocol and the second was that the court lacked power to consider evidentiary matters that had been finalized by domestic courts. Key issues to be determined An issue was raised as to whether the form and content of the application complied with legal prescriptions and whether the domestic trial that the applicant was subjected to had met international fair trial standards. The court’s finding was that it had jurisdiction notwithstanding the fact that the issue could relate to the assessment of evidence determined by domestic courts. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST